History shows that Bush II ran on a platform of non-interventionism and smaller government yet increased government size more than any previous president.

Well, there was that thing with the turbaned vermin crashing planes into buildings. Even though Bush was a half-liberal who spent like an amateur one, isn't it odd how quickly the economy bounced back after 9-11, with no failouts (and the Bush legacy AFAIC, is a failure because of the ensuing failouts).

Hey, remember me? I'm the Two Years AFTER Bush II left office. Taxocrat-controlled Congress? His Earness the Spendaholic in the Red House? Have you seen the deficit lately? Government spending? Tyranny is NOW.

Is this new Republican platform simply empty rhetoric? Or is the party shifting its political paradigm?

Well dude, as elections go, you/me/we have little choice in the matter. The 'losertarians', like all 3rd parties, have little to no effect on anything. And if enough people did want to legalize the weed etc., the smarter of the Big Two parties would steal the idea and claim it for themselves. It's why RoPaul is a Republican.

The chocie is pretty clear at this...juncture. We're not going to survive another 2 years of unopposed Odumbo, the angry left-wing radical who is a "moderate" only to those left of fcking stalin. You're kicking the tires and complainin' about the business-as-usual shortcomings of pre-'06 Republicans? Won't mean shit if there's no country to defend, and obama's commicare if not repealed immediately after November 2nd, just might be the last straw before revolution.

Oyess, revolution is an option. Guvmint can't keep stealing from the productive to buy the votes or loyalty of the unproductive. Now who you want to cast as the villains in that statement is up to you, corporations or unions or whomever. The fact remains: the center cannot hold.

November 2nd, 2010 is the most important election in your lifetime (before 2012). Don't blow it.

keep at it.. or the next so-called (neo)conservative administration will just continue the bush legacy.

'Fraid it's a dupe.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Coundown-The-Bush-Legacy-Eight-Years-in-Eight-Minutes

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by calvados.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by calvados.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Coundown-The-Bush-Legacy-Eight-Years-in-Eight-Minutes

>> ^RedSky:

>> ^misterwight:
Sycophant!


Augh! My vicarious pride!

>> ^NetRunner:


I Admit I don't know much about what happened in Lebanon post-bombing, but going on that it's a defendable position, although the consequences as can be seen in allowing Hamas to participate and win the Gaza elections can be devastating.

Untied foreign aid to Pakistan was irresponsible but I still can't really see the connection to Bhutto's assassination. I can imagine what you're implying but it sounds tenuous at best to me.

I've always thought of North Korea's nuclear belligerence as a means towards extorting foreign aid, dumping them in the axis of evil and essentially ignoring them certainly didn't help, but their behaviour almost seems inevitable anyway.

I guess I can't really rail against TV personalities rather than supposed unbiased media reporting having biased or selective opinions from ideological standpoints. I guess I'm more annoyed at that there doesn't seem to be a thirst for investigative reporting. People watch the straight out news to learn the facts, but they go to these personalities to grab an actual opinion on the events transpiring. Perhaps it's because people feel they are too pressed for time or lack enough interest to become involved, while modern culture dictates they ought to have a presentable opinion on a variety of world events leaving them with the only seemingly plausible decision of stealing someone else's. Investigative reporting ought to be there so you can make up your opinion based upon the facts at hand, and yes I know I live in my own utopian world, but it damn well doesn't hurt to dream!

Plus television the main source of news nowadays was never made and isn't really plausibly capable of conveying large amounts of facts, so yeah I guess it's basically a pipe dream. Considering that, I can't really argue with Olbermann/Maddow being an inevitable counterweight to the Bill'O's of the world, a 'they started it first' approach isn't exactly ideal but then nobody really wins elections or consensus on culturally divisive issues based upon superior policy or logic. I equally have no doubt that there are plenty of people in positions of power who have no interest in an actual debate and are entirely content funnelling points of view through their television personalities, and would very much like to keep it that way so I agree with much of what you say.

The Republicans have been wrong on most things I agree, but the divide is not just political, it's ideological. I mean you're not going to see the benefits of the free market/invisible hand being argued on Olbermann/Maddow for example.

>> ^misterwight:

Sycophant!

>> ^RedSky:


I have to agree on your first point, PEPFAR did a lot of good, and it's probably the most common thing people put forward when asked "what did Bush do right?" Still, the point Olbermann makes about not funding groups who promote condom use goes to show how petty Bush can be, even when he's doing something that's working out well.

The Muslim theocracy in Lebanon is referring to the elections Bush pushed for that resulted in a big, legitimizing win for Hezbollah -- something Bush's own advisers had predicted. You can argue that maybe other courses of action might have had the same outcome or worse, but you can't argue that giving Hezbollah legitimate influence over a country's government is anything but a lost battle in this "war on terror" he's so fond of.

As for the Mumbai bombings, and Benazir Bhutto's assasination, they're outgrowths of a policy towards Pakistan that involved simply trusting Musharraf, and giving him buckets of aid with little to no accountability. Instead, all we ever hear is "Pakistan is on our side, Iraq is the main battlefront on the War on Terror." Looking for bin Laden in Waziristan is off the table.

You have a point about North Korea being a global failing, but they were trending towards dismantling their nuclear program during Clinton's diplomatic efforts. Bush stormed in with his "we don't talk to bad guys" policy, dismantled the talks, and North Korea responded by reverting to their old ways. They were left unchecked (again, Iraq was to be our main/only focus) until they were able to build a nuclear weapon.

As for the one-sided nature of Olbermann, there's not much to argue there other than to say "they started it first." Are Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly some sort of multifaceted objective political commentary? I don't want MSNBC to become the left's Fox News, but I think the media environment can tolerate one Olbermann, and many Maddow-like personalities, for there to at least be two sides doing the whole spin-as-news shtick.

If it were me, I'd love for the media to give believably objective reporting of current events, facts, and history, but all of the outlets that try to do so are either a) struggling to "prove" their objectivity by trying to show that both parties have equal responsibility for all failures or b) are flagged by people as being left-leaning because objectively speaking, Republicans haven't gotten anything right in quite a while.

We'll see how long people keep accusing, say, PBS or the NYT of being "liberal" now that Democrats are in power. I suspect even HuffPo and TPM will get credit for doing fact-based reporting, now that Democrats are in the driver's seat. After all, the "liberal" press loves to attack authority, no matter who they are. "Conservative" press will keep doing what it's been doing; smear Democrats at all times, praise conservative Republicans at all times, and frame all failures as a direct outgrowth of failure to adhere to conservative principles, or failure to pursue them drastically enough.

And you kissed his ass the entire time, up until McCain lost.

I've got plenty of negative commentary on Bush's liberal actions. But here on liberalsift, we're not discussing policy, it's me vs. upvoted lies and gross distortions about the man's character. Liberals have no chance in a fair fight so they attack the messenger, never the facts.

Considering the two dickheads the libtards ran against Bush, we still got the lesser of two evils. That's right, mofo. Read that sentence again.

There's no point arguing the Bush legacy with liberals. They hate the "evil Bush" mass media-creation as much as they love the Obama-as-savior.

Bush will be considered a better President than the Obamessiah.

Obama isn't a failed conservative he's a liberal ideologue aka marxist weenie. What's good to him is poison for America.

Whether there had been bailouts or not, half the country now expects the government to change their diapers. Fk 'em.

Good to hear from someone who was there. War for profit - what a proud, "honorable" Bush legacy.

Disgusting.

I watched some of the hearings on this the week before this vote was forced through - this Kevin Martin guy is an asshat-bush crony extraordinaire. He couldn't answer one question straight and frankly looked like a complete fool that had his mind made up and nothing was going to change it. I guess he cashed the check...

Oh and what the hell good does it do to have "unprecedented public access" to a government commision the majority of which has absolutely no intention or interest in taking into account the public's input.

Carrying on the Bush legacy of fucking the public in democratic robes...

In reply to this comment by choggie:Paul has no hope. The only way to make it to the presidency, is through association-he ain't part of the click click click, of politics as usual in the U.S.
Gotta be connected to the cabal-

the illusion of the system, and they are quite good at what they do, hypnotizing the voters into thinking they have a choice....

Your bitter argument is correct. Nevertheless, I don't care. I'm invested in the issues around Ron Paul. I care about reversing the G.W. Bush legacy. The difference between Clinton and Rudolph W. Giuliani (first time I've typed his name) So, the difference between Clinton and Giuliani....They both dress like women.

So, although I should be interested in the Presidential "Title match." I find the qualifying rounds far more edifying.

cosmicshame yes, must concur with the results of GB in the EEC, and perhaps we are somewhere in the paradigm of world powers, where it may take us into a better one, if a world leader shows compassion and empathy in such a situation, however-
This guys' tears, considering his track record and dubious associations, do not serve to do anything but piss off those who have followed, the twisted Bush legacy.

And-
World leaders-DO NOT CRY IN PUBLIC!(esp. over contrived bullshit) WEAKness- His bawling was as inappropriate, as most of his moves-they really lack what it takes to be leaders, of anything but their own empire...

There is still value, in our world's, borders, it's diversity of intact cultures and languages- change is a part of the experience here, but it is a difficult thing, to transition, usually comes with sacrifice-This "baby with the basin water" approach to the 21st century, that would replace solid sensibilities, and values which most ascribe to but don't practice,' with "consider all lifestyles, and bring all comers", is dangerous, and foolhardy...